A trade group for Internet companies and ISPs points out that most Americans …

Share this story

The US Internet Industry Association, a trade group representing Internet companies and ISPs, has just released a report on broadband deployment in rural America. Actually, "report" is too generous; the document simply rehashes some numbers on US broadband that we have covered before here at Ars. But the paper raises a point worth mentioning: don't confuse broadband adoption and deployment. Most US citizens can get some form of broadband access But those in rural areas are less likely to pay for it than those in urban areas.

The USIIA points to several stats on broadband availability in the US. At least one person in 99 percent of US ZIP codes has access to an Internet connection over 200kbps, for instance. Now, that's not a terribly impressive statistic for multiple reasons, but better are the findings that 79 percent of those with a home phone (which is nearly everyone in the US, thanks to the Universal Service Fund) could get DSL. In addition, 96 percent of all households who can get a cable signal can purchase Internet access through their cable provider (though cable reaches many fewer homes than do phone lines).

None of these statistics is new, but USIIA is right to point out that the deployment of broadband lines in recent years has grown reasonably comprehensive. As to the actual use of broadband services, though, the numbers are lower, and there's still a substantial gap between urban residents and rural residents. The point of the paper is that this can't be chalked up to faults on the part of infrastructure companies, and is instead caused mainly by age and cash. Rural residents tend to be older and less well-off than their urban peers in the US, making broadband both less interesting and less affordable.

Sure it's tasty, but can you afford broadband?

But then the real point of the discussion becomes clear: "these are largely issues of investment and technological innovation rather than issues that require changes in policy." While the USIIA welcomes more government money to extend access to rural residents, it's not as open to federal regulation of the tubes. Despite the fact that "more rural broadband use" isn't generally trotted out the best reason to support network neutrality or open access, the paper makes sure to let the reader know that both are a bad idea. "Regulation of the Internet, from open access to network neutrality, won't stimulate adoption of broadband," says the paper. (Not surprisingly, the group also told the FCC to butt out (PDF) when it comes to regulating network management in the Comcast case.)

What we need to get away from, the USIIA says, is presenting data "in ways intended to support a specific policy or political view rather than allowing the data to speak to [sic] itself." Data doesn't talk to itself, of course, and it doesn't interpret itself, either. If it did, the USIAA would have released a table of statistics and not a document that is almost completely interpretive and intended to support certain policy ideas and political views about the nature of the Internet.